Gypsies and travellers

Trouble ahead

YOUR reporter was at Dale Farm again yesterday, one of a number of visits she has made for The Economist over the past five years to what has become an iconic symbol of gypsy and traveller tussles with planning laws.

In 2006 the matriarch of the site, Mary-Ann McCarthy, declared herself worried at the prospect she would soon be on the road again, as her chalet, and 50 others on the Irish traveller site near Basildon, in Essex, was situated on land that the families owned, but on which they did not have planning permission to live. A few weeks ago the families lost their final legal challenge. Yesterday was supposed to be eviction day—after many phoney wars—for the residents of Dale Farm.

Dale Farm has changed for the worse over the past five years. Then, the plots were neatly kept, and the chalets and caravans immaculate. Now the site is littered and pretty much deserted. Most residents, including Mrs McCarthy, left last week, leaving behind a hardcore of those who refuse to move and others who are too sick to move without support.

One such, Margaret Gammell, sitting in her modest chalet, weeps as she says, “We have nowhere to go and we don't even have a van to drive away in. This is all we have. I never thought we would come to this.” Mrs Gammell has a heart condition and diabetes; she doesn't know where next month's medication will come from—or where her blood tests will be taken if she is to go on the road again.

Outside her chalet, during the day, another problem becomes glaringly obvious. The residents who remain (some 40 or so, including around 20 children, judging from an unscientific headcount), are heavily outnumbered by around 100 so-called “activists”. They are all fed vegan food and drink endless cups of tea flavoured with “oat” milk, funded, it appears, by the residents themselves, in a number of (not completely) voluntary collections. The activists counter that they, too, contribute generously to the communal pot and that all donations are freely given.

The overwhelming majority of self-proclaimed activists wear masks on their faces. A number have chained themselves to various obstacles they have erected near the gates to Dale Farm. Anarchist slogans are written, in neat handwriting, above the two activists who have locked themselves to the main entrance to Dale Farm. One, a young Frenchwoman who gives only her first name, Emma, has chained herself by the neck to the gate. The other, a putative film-maker, Dean Puckett, has locked his left arm to an oil barrel. If the bailiffs attempt to enter the site from the front, the protesters say, the two activists will be harmed.

Mr Puckett says he supports non-violent resistance. He acknowledges, though, that his presence, and that of the other activists, has created a split within the gypsy and traveller community. Indeed, early on eviction day Candy Sheridan, the vice-chair of the Gypsy Council, a representative body, condemned the action of the activists, saying that they were doing nothing useful for the cause of residents at Dale Farm. Mr Puckett retorts, “Candy needs to listen to the residents here. We're supporting them. She doesn't represent them.”

The presence of the activists is an ominous warning of trouble ahead for those who advocate a negotiated solution to the many problems facing gypsies and travellers. Mrs Sheridan, a veteran campaigner and a former district councillor in North Norfolk, advocates an end to their (often self-imposed) isolation and instead an engagement with what they call “the settled community”, including political involvement and education for gypsy and traveller children. Joseph Jones, another member of the Gypsy Council, agrees, saying, “This [activist presence] is not helpful. There could be a solution but the activists aren't going to get us a solution.”

But other campaigners, most notably Grattan Puxon, also a member of the body, encouraged the activists, many of whom are at best ambivalent about the use of violence to attain their ends, to come to Dale Farm around a month ago. Mr Puxon readily agrees that “different views have come to the surface” in the Gypsy Council in the run-up to the eviction. But he believes that the presence of the activists has put pressure on the local council to change its mind—and that the international media presence outside the barricades has focused attention on the plight of gypsies and travellers facing eviction throughout Britain. Those who favour talking and integration fear that they have lost the battle—for now at least.

They may well be right. Your correspondent witnessed small children making cement bombs (albeit with plastic bottles and balloons) yesterday, protesters carrying a leaky car battery towards the front gates and makeshift barricades being erected throughout the camp. Many observers fear that action from the bailiffs will be met with violence from some inside. Some of the residents still at Dale Farm confide that they are no longer in control of the situation and fear asking the activists to desist from further protest—as they have been asked to do by the judge who, yesterday, gave the Dale Farm residents a brief stay on the eviction while certain conditions are met by the council.

Things are likely to get nastier and more violent before the inevitable happens and the last few residents are forced to leave Dale Farm. This outcome will probably alienate those Britons who believe that gypsies and travellers have many legitimate grievances—but also believe in the rule of law.

This article is inaccurate in many ways. There are many supportive people both at Dale Farm and in the area - seeking to label individuals and create stereotypes which are not necessarily true is not helpful to anyone. "Many observers fear that action from the bailiffs will be met with violence from some inside". Many people believe that the bailiffs will be brutal, as is the history of Constant & Co.
"They are all fed vegan food and drink endless cups of tea flavoured with “oat” milk, funded, it appears, by the residents themselves, in a number of (not completely) voluntary collections." This is blatantly untrue and I wonder about your motivations. People are fearing loss of their homes, schooling, medical help and liberty. It's not about the milk.

I've also visited the site, and have friends among the 'activists', and yes, the reporter can, maybe, be said to have been guilty of a little (quite gentle, really) stereotyping - but 'activists' have to accept that they do open themselves up for this kind of ribbing. I've been part of many protests ever since the 1980s (environmental activities, road protests etc) and all too often those involved tend to have interesting hairstyles, ultra radical political beliefs, vegan or vegetarian diets, and a distinct deficiency in the sense of humour dept.

It goes with the territory.

Some of those at Dale Farm can be said to be fairly representative of this particular community, and it does have to be said that presenting yourself in this way - which of course the average Daily Mail reader will find objectionable - probably doesn't help the cause, in the end.

If you set yourself up - and dress accordingly- in 'opposition' to the usual mores of 'society' (however much you despise those mores) you may have to accept that 'society' may not only view you with suspicion, but probably won't take anything you say seriously- and reporters may not view you with the kind of total seriousness you'd prefer. So I'd say- relax on the oat-milk issue- and please, develop a thicker skin, and a sense of humour. Yes, you are trying to do something in support of a minority community who are getting the rough end of the stick, at the moment, and that is to be applauded- but at the same time, you do have to develop an objectivity about the way you're doing it- and how you look, as you're doing it. Sometimes it helps to look and act a bit more 'normal', if you want people to take you seriously.

It also helps to view the whole picture with some objectivity. Yes, those residents of Dale Farm who haven't left (and most have, by now) have nowhere to go, and yes, councils across the land have been deficient in supplying pitches for travellers to live on when travelling- hence this whole issue. At the same time, however, the travellers have been guilty of ignoring planning laws and packing the site with too many pitches. This can't just be ignored. Travellers, in the end, have no more right to do this than anyone else. Yes, councils and bailiffs are often pretty vicious about the way they deal with evictions, but that doesn't give a community the excuse to just ignore the same laws that the rest of us have to live with.

There are 'issues' on both sides, here. Neither side is 'right'. If - as a poster above claims- travellers should be 'travelling' then they do have to have places to camp up now and then, and if society as a whole wishes them to be travelling rather than stuffing Dale Farm with too many pitches, then we do, as a society, have to provide those pitches for those who want to travel. On the traveller's side, the deal is that they wouldn't (as they often do) leave piles of trash and cut branches in parks and open spaces, or feel totally unrepentant about stealing £65,000 or "taking what God says I should be allowed to take" (as one traveller showed when interviewed for the recent Dispatches documentary)

While I'm sure- and I hope- that particular traveller isn't representative of the entire community, those of you who support the travellers shouldn't just ignore the fact that there are certain beliefs and practices prevalent among some in the traveller community which really aren't 'acceptable', by any reasonable standards. Yes, they need support, and yes, their culture and their way of life does have a right to survive- but there has to be acceptance on both sides that if the culture is to survive, both sides will have to accept some degree of compromise.

So- I wish you all well out there, and your courage is to be applauded- but don't get too 'romantic' about all this, and do be aware that how you look, and how you act, does have an impact on how your message is seen out there. Simply offering a purely oppositional standpoint (chaining yourself to the gates, or throwing tea in a bailiff's face) will allow those who have equivalently oppositional standpoints- from the other side, to get all the ammunition they need to make you look ridiculous.

COMPROMISE - yes, it's a milksop word, a neither white-nor-black word, even a slightly boring word- but it is what this situation needs, on both sides. Think about it.

In what way is building a permanent community of chalets compatible with the lifestyle travellers/gypsies claim to follow - ie moving around with no fixed abode?

In what way can their defying UK planning rules be a "grievance"; when the rest of us have to obey the most minor planning dictat of the local council?

I suppose it would be called a "grievance" if council tax were levied on these dwellings: the rest of us just accept we have to pay.

Are gypsies/travellers "aggrieved" that other people's taxes pay for the substantial handouts they demand and receive - whilst making no financial contribution themselves to the UK?

How are they different from those mortals who exploit a loophole to live free on our canal system - evading mooring fees, council tax and other costs (by falsely claiming their boat is constantly navigating, rather than staying in one place)?

I know we are NOT "all in it together", but the era is ending of public tolerance that some people exploit the kindnesses of the UK System to live off the taxes of others.

As for the "activists"; how is it that we justify heavy-handed treatment of "rioters" - and lengthy prison terms; yet treat with kid-gloves others who blatently threaten violence?

We Brits are so wishy-washy on stuff like this: take a tip from the French: tasers would instantly calm the situation.

further to the comments from juliastillhere , indeed coming from an active supporter inside the camp , rather than activist , I feel there are inaccuracies. I have spoken with many of the Dale Farm community who are continually grateful and supportive of the people 'fighting' there cause , no pun intended and after spending almost a 24 hour period at the front gate , either patrolling , guarding or at the very top of the scaffold I can assure you that I was approached by the travelling community and thanked many times , one making a comment ' if it wasn't for you (supporters)all here now , they (Basildon Council , Constant and Co) would have swept us away' . There is a much bigger issue at stake here , other than those mentioned in the article , that is , that post Dale Farm there will be and have to be fundamental changes made to accommodate the travelling community and assure that this is not repeated. Every council , local authority and police authority will be watching for the outcome of Dale Farm and I am confident that resilience of the travellers,protesters , activists and supporters will ensure good will become of this..... and that the travellers of Dale Farm were not just 'swept away'..

As a disinterested and otherwise uninformed reader I am impressed with Blighty's commitment in actually going to the farm as opposed to the more dogmatic coverage in the rest of the press. Though I am no lawyer I think that if you believe in the rule of law then you either go along with the law or get the law changed. I wish the travellers well but I don't see why they should not have to obey the law which binds the rest of us.

To be fair to the traveller community, they do have legitimate problems and grievances. However, nobody has the right to break the law. If you don't like the law you either leave the country or you try and get it changed. If you break the law, continuously, for an entire decade then, in my opinion, you should have no right to protection under it. The rest of the population has to abide by the law, if they want to be treated equally then they have to accept the same responsibilities that the rest of us do.

Also, just as an aside, I would like to know how you can possibly class yourself as a "traveller" when you've been living on the same plot for an entire decade, the average family moves home more often.

In many parts of the world, there is a tendancy to try to get rid of the poor.
In USA there was segregation until recently. Near Seattle, they get rid of the poor by requiring at least 5 acres (2 Hectares) per family as the minimum building lot. In Britain, they do not allow anyone to build anything on their farmland, and the decendands of 1066 still own three fourths of the land, and the natives are put in prison for building a house on the remaining fourth.
Not sure of an answer to this, but at least we should realize that the real purpose is to get the poor to go away.
Not long ago, England had the ultimate solution, Death for all caught begging. It has gotten a bit better since then.

The travellers do just what suits them day by day without any regard for the normal and local residents.
The activists are in for it whatever the cause. It's their way of life as well rather than getting a proper job and paying taxes like normal people.

On the other hand, I suspect that many protestors are just looking for something to fight for because they like to fight. Not sure if this is a good thing for society, but at least they are giving some thought as to choice of cause, unlike those who fight the fans of other football teams.

As a resident of village which has been fighting an inappropriate application for a traveller site, and watching two surrounding villages where such fights were won only for them to be subjected to illegal sites anyway, I have been amazed at how much planning laws are relaxed for travellers. Whilst the rest of the village, particularly in the conversation area or the listed buildings, has to jump through endless hoops to complete minor works or extensions in keeping with the area, our local council's traveller planning policy completely removes most of the protections we have from inappropriate developments in the countryside. Normal requirements that developments be in keeping with the local area are thrown out with huge wavers that serve only to alienate the settled community.

There may be a need for different rules for sites where people can stop for a couple of days or a week at most. When discussing the permanent settlements that most applications are for though, and having unusable wheels on prefab house doesn't make it a vardo, that the rules aren't the same for everyone in the UK regardless of background is a disgrace.

Temporary stop notices, which are efficient in stopping the mainly law abiding from illegal development are no use in preventing development which is in effect instant, again leaving us with no protection.

This is a community which benefits from their exemption from a range of laws the settled population bears and yet still grossly violates the relaxed standards. Those Britons who sympathise are I suspect a small group indeed.

Problems like this arise throughout the world involving where the poor live and whether or not it is appropriate. In my opinion, if the law makes people unhappy, they should work on changing it. It is completely unnecessary to use violence when protesting, in fact, it's probably the worst way to get your point across. I hope there is a solution to this and I hope it us found soon. No matter who it is, I don't think it is fair to use violence in getting your point across. The problem needs to be resolved and those left homeless should be helped.